WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Restitution of property in the applicant countries.
Date: 2000-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Community acquis, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, ownership

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/13

(2001/C 81 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood

The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and
the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is
used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.

Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from
impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor
may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as
compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds.

However, it would now appear from press reports that the Dutch Government will turn a blind eye to the
exportation to other EU Member States of carcinogenic woodshavings for the production of chipboard,
toys and the like, thus contravening both the letter and the spirit of various EU directives.

Is the Council aware of the exportation of carcinogenic woodshavings from the Netherlands to other EU
Member States?

(a)

If so, which are those countries?

(b)

If not, does the Council think there should be an inquiry, in view of the negative consequences for
humans and the environment and the infringement of various EU directives?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, exports of impregnated wood in the form of waste are covered by
Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipment of waste within, into and out of the
European Community. Furthermore, as the Honourable Member is also aware, the provisions in Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste cover a possible classification of impregnated wood.

It is for the Commission to take whatever steps are deemed necessary to ensure the proper application of
the above Community legislation.

(2001/C 81 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

Subject: Restitution of property in the applicant countries

(30 March 2000)

Many Union citizens are descendants of persons whose property in central and eastern Europe was seized
during the Nazi occupation or the Holocaust period or durings and after the subsequent Communist
takeover. Will the Council insist, as an essential condition for the accession of the new Member States to
the European Union, that they adopt and implement effective schemes to restore property unlawfully
seized?

C 81 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Council is aware of the problems associated with the restitution of property in certain applicant
countries of central and eastern Europe.

As the Honourable Member undoubtedly knows, the accession negotiations are conducted on the basis of
the acquis communautaire, which the applicant countries have to take over and implement before
accession. The relevant chapter of the acquis for the purposes of the acquisition of immovable property
is the chapter on the free movement of capital. However, there is as yet no specific acquis relating to the
question raised by the Honourable Member.

Whatever the case, the applicant countries(cid:146) compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined
in the Treaties, will be monitored closely.

(2001/C 81 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European tuna canning industry

(31 March 2000)

In the framework of the new COM, on 17 December 1999 the Fisheries Council agreed to open a new
quota of 4 000 tonnes for tuna from third countries, at a tariff of 6 %, for the period 2001 to 2003.

In the draft agreement between the European Union and Mexico, the Commission has also agreed to
consider during the third quarter of 2001 the possibility of opening a quota for tuna loins originating
from Mexico.

Does the quota of 4 000 tonnes from third countries at a 6 % tariff for the period 2001-2003 include the
possible quota of Mexican tuna loins, or, if agreed, would the latter be in addition to the original quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The autonomous tariff quotas opened by the Community to supply the processing industry must be
applied universally and so be accessible to all non-member countries if they are to comply with the rules
of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). By contrast, tariff concessions under a free trade agreement, such
as the concluded by the Community with Mexico, are restricted to the preferential partner concerned,
pursuant to Article XXIV: 8(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This means that,
while Mexico may benefit from the Community(cid:146)s autonomous tariff quotas, other non-member countries
may not benefit from tariff concessions granted by the Community to Mexico under the free trade
agreement.

The autonomous tariff quota of 4 000 tonnes of tuna loins at 6 % recently approved by the Council could
therefore also assist Mexico. In addition, the Community will have to honour its commitment under the
trade agreement between the Community and Mexico and so begin discussions before 1 September 2001
on the possibility of opening a tariff quota for this type of product under preferential arrangements.

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that the trade concessions already agreed
with Mexico in the fisheries sector and any future concessions form part of a trade agreement which will
result in a significant increase in bilateral trade in all sectors, which will benefit both Mexico and the
Community, including firms in Spain.